Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I think that Eastern group would have been a financial monster.

At the time, the Big Ten was still looked upon as the Big Two and little eight.

divisions would help
a lot

Yes, Texas fans don't view the SEC as a brotherhood they longed to join.  Conferences might have been that way 50 years ago but ever since the Georgia/OU court decision in 1984 it's been all about business.  Penn State didn't join the Big Ten in 1991 because they thought they were joining a brotherhood of like-minded fellow fans, they joined because the Big Ten offered them more money.  Arkansas didn't leave the SWC in 1992 because they thought the SEC was their destiny, they left because the SEC offered them more money.  Missouri didn't even want the SEC, they wanted the B1G, but they left for the SEC anyway, because the SEC offered them more money.  And then think of ALL of the smaller schools shifting conferences, moving up from the G5 conferences into the P4 conferences.  West Virginia didn't join the B12 because it was emotionally invested, they joined for more money and exposure.  Same for Cincy, Houston, TCU, BYU.  Maryland left the ACC not because it desperately wanted to play games in the Rust Belt, they left for the promise of more money.  Same for Rutgers to the b1G, plus countless other schools shifting around amongst the G5 conferences.

Honestly A&M is an outlier here, and I understand why.  A&M wanted to move away from UT's shadow and believed that staying in the same conference ultimately worked against its long-term interest, so the A&M administration made a change. Aggie fans wanted a place to belong that felt more like their own.  I think it was the right decision for A&M at the time and for the most part it worked out for the Ags.  But I think it's a bit misplaced, or out of touch with reality, to think that all of the other schools switching conferences, are doing it because they long for a sense of belonging.  I think the Ags are pretty unique in that aspect.

But don't misunderstand our lack of some burning desire to join the SEC, for being unhappy about it.  I'm excited about the new matchups, I'm excited to be reunited with longtime rivals Arkansas and A&M on an annual basis (hopefully).  As you said, many of us felt this move was inevitable, because the B12 contracts were never ultimately going to be able to keep pace with the B1G and SEC contracts, and geographically the SEC makes more sense than the B1G for Texas.  This is the new landscape of college football, such as it is.

Yup I liked the original B12 too. I liked the format, I was excited about getting to play the then-dominant Huskers, and I even liked the idea of having OU as a conference game.

But I was born and raised with the SWC.  If money hadn't completely changed the sport, I'd have been delighted to stick with the SWC and its bowl affiliations from about 1983, and I really liked all of the other conferences and their bowls as well.  The focus back then wasn't solely on the national championship, it was all about beating your rivals, winning the conference, and getting to a good bowl game.  I enjoyed college football a lot more then, than I do now.

But there's no turning back time, so we have to take what we're given and find the best in it.  Or, alternatively, leave it, if we no longer find it compelling.

Fast approaching this, for many people, including true fanatics like us.

I think the original Big 12 could have benefited greatly from a divisionless format.  The North division dominated the first 5 years,  then it flipped and the South dominated the rest of the time.  But the divisions never seemed to be balanced.

Nebraska could have designated Oklahoma as its one permanent rival.  Oklahoma would have needed 3 permanent rivals.  Texas might have needed 4 permanent rivals.  The key is to make that flexible just like The Big Ten's current flex protect program.